Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Direct payments archive 2019-2020

Archive has 63 results

  • Leicestershire County Council (18 017 173)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 12-Mar-2020

    Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to arrange home care for Mr B within a reasonable timescale after assessing his needs. This meant he stayed in residential care for several weeks longer than he needed to. This caused Mr B and his son (who was paying a third-party top-up towards the residential care) a financial injustice, as the residential care was more expensive than the home care. The Council has agreed to remedy this by making payments to them totalling £1,100.

  • Norfolk County Council (19 012 900)

    Statement Not upheld Direct payments 11-Mar-2020

    Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council made changes to its charging policy for adult social care.

  • Warwickshire County Council (19 016 134)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Direct payments 05-Mar-2020

    Summary: Ms X complained that the Council ended her Direct Payments. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault.

  • Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (19 008 980)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 02-Mar-2020

    Summary: The Council withdrew respite care for thirteen months because Mr X would not accept residential respite. It then reinstated respite but reduced the number of nights. It also set an arbitrary upper limit on the amount it was willing to pay per night.

  • Southampton City Council (19 011 664)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Direct payments 28-Feb-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about how the Council carried out a public consultation to change its adult social care charging policy. He will also not investigate the Council's failure to financially assess the complainant. This is because it is unlikely he could add to the Council's investigation.

  • Somerset County Council (19 013 271)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Direct payments 26-Feb-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council stopping his direct payments in 2015. Mr X has known about the complaint for more than 12 months and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate the complaint now.

  • Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (19 009 004)

    Statement Not upheld Direct payments 20-Feb-2020

    Summary: The Council's decision that Mr B no longer owes any money for his late wife's care has resolved the outstanding issue on this complaint. In the circumstances no further investigation of the complaint is necessary or appropriate.

  • Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (19 003 701)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 17-Feb-2020

    Summary: there was no fault in the Council's assessment of Mr Y's social care needs and support planning in the period before he left school and moved to a specialist post 19 college. There was fault in the way the Council considered a request for post 19 transport assistance for Mr Y. This caused injustice to Mr Y's mother, Ms X, because she had to drive him to college which is some distance from their home. The Council has agreed to provide a suitable remedy.

  • Blackpool Borough Council (19 007 567)

    Statement Upheld Direct payments 14-Feb-2020

    Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council handled the care costs when her father went into residential care. The Council was not at fault for the way it handled the care costs nor for asking Mrs X to repay direct payments in the circumstances. It was at fault for a delay in pursuing community care charges and should apologise for this.

  • Kent County Council (19 013 936)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Direct payments 11-Feb-2020

    Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X's complaint about her backdated and ongoing care charges. This is because the Council has taken proportionate action to remedy the injustice to Mrs X for to the backdated care charges. It is unlikely that an investigation will lead to a different outcome. It is also unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault with the Council over the ongoing care charges.